Author
Topic: You guys.... [#2816] (Read 935 times)

Hello, I just wanted to correct you guys on the whole, "God is sexist" thing.

The PEOPLE back then were sexist. But does it say anywhere that God agreed with them? No. Another thing I would like to ask is if you guys understand the concept between whether the Bible is telling the story of what happened and in how the culture was and what God thought of it? There is a complete difference.

You guys are basically calling God/the Bible sexist because of how the people treated the women back then. But let me show you how God thinks of the women.

God had many women disciples, here is a list of all of them:

Mary MagdaleneMary, the mother of Jesus, and the mother of James the Just, Joses, Jude the Apostle, Simon who might be Simon the Zealot, and possibly the mother of Thomas Didymus and Mary SalomeMary Salome, wife of Zebedee who was the father of James the Greater and John the Apostle. Possibly both the daughter and sister-in-law of Mary and the sister of Jesus.Sisters Mary and Martha of Bethany, also the sisters of LazarusMary of Clopas possibly Mary Salome the daughter or wife of ClopasThe MarysJoannaSusannaPriscillaTabitha/DorcasLydiaPhoebeJuniaTryphena of Rome and TryphosaJuliaNymphaApphiaWomen receive power of the Holy Spirit at the Pentecost

God also answered Abraham's wifes prayers for having a child when they couldn't?And that was at the very beginning.

And then there was the women who witnessed with the Apostle Paul. And Paul actually thanks them for that.

It also says in the Bible:

Mark 16:15 "And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.

All of these versus are referring to all of his followers, not just men. So if God allows women to do what the men do for his work, how is that being sexist?

God want's all of his followers to spread the gospel, not just women.

Another argument that has been made is the fact that Paul told the women to remain quiet in the church and so that's apparently, "another reason why the Bible is sexist". But if you actually read the whole thing, it was that specific church that was having a problem with the women talking during the service specifically. So basically Paul was saying that no one should speak while the service is going, not just women. Let me say it again, it was just that one church that was having that problem with the women specifically. Get it?

Another thing that is said in the Bible is that men should never lay a hand on a women.

Jesus even stopped everything to make his earthly mother, Marry, have a good wedding because I believe they were out of something?

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

Ephesians 5:33

However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

See, the Bible is filled with so many contradictions, that it becomes irrelevant to discuss it. However, I'll bite.

Quote from: Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Raped a virgin woman and were discovered? No problem! Buy her from her father and marry her! Now you can rape her every day without anyone saying anything!

The Bible is a disgusting book written by primitive men and believe by far too many people to be the word of a god. It's not even good as a story book, simply because it's so badly written.

-_- oh my gosh. You people are so naive and full of hate. The Bible speaks in metaphors all the time. You take it too literally. Please do show me where that verse is so I can further explain it to you in greater detail.

You read one of my posts and are already judging. If hating evil, like the Bible, is bad, then I guess many of us are bad. Personally, I don't hate the Bible. I wish to preserve it for future generations as a reminder of how far we've gone. From polytheism that caused millions of death, to monotheism that caused billions of deaths - not to mention the dark ages - to atheism that caused a grand total of zero throughout all of history.

The atheists in Mexico back in the early 20th Century, as one example. To say it was primarily for one main motive (power or dictatorship, or what not) is disingenuous because "primarily" isn't an exlusion.

Example:

Was it Christians in the name of Christianity that conquered North, Central, South America and the Caribbean or was there other things involved? Did Christianity play a significant part? Yes...but to believe they solely did it in the name of their religion is ridiculous -- same for atheist conquerors over history.

The only wars, perhaps, one could definitively state were based on religion is perhaps the Crusades, The Inquisition, and other minor wars over history.

If that's true for them, then that's true for any conqueror no matter their religion or non-religion.

-Nam

Logged

Quote from: David Garrett Arnold

there are oceans of words aged in prayer,against geometric lines, and cloudbeaten skies;credulous allure—slowly captivated in hearts fair—trees and flowers bloomed in grace upon one's eyes.

Oh, and to answer your question (I forgot): people kill for ideologies and philosophies all the time. To say it's not the same, I feel, is also disingenuous.

You can't kill based on something you don't believe. It makes no sense. Atheism is neither an ideology nor a philosophy. It's, at best, a PoV on the "god" issue. It means that you don't believe in deities. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone says "I'm killing because I don't believe", what they might be saying/thinking is "I don't believe, so I don't have the threat of eternal punishment hanging over my head, so I'll kill to satisfy my sadism".Tell me, if atheism says nothing (because it's not a philosophy, ideology, religion, et cetera) aside from one's individual lack of belief in deities, how can anyone kill for it?

And of course there's a "cause of atheism"; if there was no religion there'd be no atheism.

And does that mean that "the cause of atheism" is to eliminate religion? Because, if so, I'll have to start calling myself something other than atheist, since I don't support that cause. Many other atheists will have to do the same. Or, better yet, since atheism just means lack of belief in deities, you (and those who agree with you) start calling yourselves something else.

However, in saying all that: there's no debating you on the subject: you're right, I'm wrong and that's the end of it, to you.

I'll take that as an admission that you can't come up with an argument.EDIT: I want to note that the only argument I can conceive of to make me accept "the cause of atheism" would be to prove (using recent statistics) that most atheists adhere to said cause, in which case I'll start calling myself something other than "gnostic atheist". Definitions change over time; I realize that. However, there are some requirements for me to change my mind regarding the meaning of certain words.

And does that mean that "the cause of atheism" is to eliminate religion?

To the atheist.

Quote

Because, if so, I'll have to start calling myself something other than atheist

I only call myself an atheist because otherwise people would call me a nihilist -- I think you did that once.

Quote

since I don't support that cause. Many other atheists will have to do the same. Or, better yet, since atheism just means lack of belief in deities, you (and those who agree with you) start calling yourselves something else.

I tried that: see above.

Quote

I'll take that as an admission that you can't come up with an argument.

It'd be pointless to do so as I said.

Quote

EDIT: I want to note that the only argument I can conceive of to make me accept "the cause of atheism" would be to prove (using recent statistics) that most atheists adhere to said cause, in which case I'll start calling myself something other than "gnostic atheist". Definitions change over time; I realize that. However, there are some requirements for me to change my mind regarding the meaning of certain words.

At least you're trying.

-Nam

Logged

Quote from: David Garrett Arnold

there are oceans of words aged in prayer,against geometric lines, and cloudbeaten skies;credulous allure—slowly captivated in hearts fair—trees and flowers bloomed in grace upon one's eyes.

With all due respect, OAA, I cannot accept your reasoning as correct. Atheism may not be a worldview by itself, but it certainly helps to form worldviews, if only by defining their boundaries. For example, I do not believe that leprechauns exist; as a result, leprechauns are excluded from my worldview. However, the lack of belief in leprechauns is still part of my worldview, because it excludes leprechauns from being included in my worldview.

Your argument is the equivalent of claiming that a visual representation of a set doesn't include the boundary line drawn around that set, even though without that boundary line, no set would be defined. You define the set by defining its boundaries, therefore the boundaries must necessarily be part of the set. Therefore, even though atheism is a boundary of a worldview (by keeping gods out of that worldview), it is still part of that worldview.

If you lack belief in deities, by definition (or at least the latest that I know of), you're an atheist. You can be an atheist and a nihilist. Nothing that prevents you from doing that. You can even be an atheist and believe in the supernatural (ghosts and such). What you can't do is what some moron claimed: be an atheist who believes in a god.

I cannot accept your reasoning as correct. Atheism may not be a worldview by itself, but it certainly helps to form worldviews, if only by defining their boundaries. For example, I do not believe that leprechauns exist; as a result, leprechauns are excluded from my worldview. However, the lack of belief in leprechauns is still part of my worldview, because it excludes leprechauns from being included in my worldview.

Your argument is the equivalent of claiming that a visual representation of a set doesn't include the boundary line drawn around that set, even though without that boundary line, no set would be defined. You define the set by defining its boundaries, therefore the boundaries must necessarily be part of the set. Therefore, even though atheism is a boundary of a worldview (by keeping gods out of that worldview), it is still part of that worldview.

...Where did I say anything that would contradict what you said here? :S

If you lack belief in deities, by definition (or at least the latest that I know of), you're an atheist. You can be an atheist and a nihilist. Nothing that prevents you from doing that. You can even be an atheist and believe in the supernatural (ghosts and such). What you can't do is what some moron claimed: be an atheist who believes in a god.

Apparently not which is why I used you as a possible reference.

This is how the basic conversation went:

Nam: "I'm not an atheist. I believe in nothing."You[1]: "So you are a nihilist?"Nam: "No."You: "I don't get it."

So, saying I believe in nothing[2] apparently makes me a nihilist. Nihilism is the rejection of religious and moral theories. I reject neither[3].

At least the first thing you dismissed wasn't snarky. I truly did not understand your reply. The second one may have been presented in a snarky way, but it was also unclear to me whether or not you were being sarcastic, this being a written medium and all. AFAIK we don't have a "sarcasm" punctuation mark yet.

You're proving my point: people need labels; what they don't understand, they need to label -- apparently that's the only way they can understand it.

Who said I don't understand? The goal was to help you find a proper label, since you, by your own admission, just grabbed one without concern for whether or not it applied. As for people needing labels, of course we need them. Try conveying information without using nouns, pronouns, adjectives, or adverbs of any kind. That's what label-less communication looks like.

At least the first thing you dismissed wasn't snarky. I truly did not understand your reply. The second one may have been presented in a snarky way, but it was also unclear to me whether or not you were being sarcastic, this being a written medium and all. AFAIK we don't have a "sarcasm" punctuation mark yet.

You're proving my point: people need labels; what they don't understand, they need to label -- apparently that's the only way they can understand it.

Who said I don't understand? The goal was to help you find a proper label, since you, by your own admission, just grabbed one without concern for whether or not it applied. As for people needing labels, of course we need them. Try conveying information without using nouns, pronouns, adjectives, or adverbs of any kind. That's what label-less communication looks like.

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

And what you (basically) said (the rest was just an explanation for your reasoning):

I see no problem or contradiction in what I wrote. I was answering your point that it was impossible to kill in the name of something that isn't a worldview by pointing out that atheism is part of a worldview, if only by forming its boundary, and thus can be a justification for why an atheist might kill someone else. That doesn't mean I consider it likely that an atheist would do this, but I'm certainly not willing to say that it's impossible.